Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Star Chronicle Publishing Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. United Press Associations, 1914 — 232 U.S. 714 · caselaw · US
General
Star Chronicle Publishing Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. United Press Associations
232 U.S. 714·Supreme Court of the United States·1914
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 776.
Star Chronicle Publishing Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. United Press Associations.
In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm and for damages.
Submitted January 5, 1914.
Decided January 12, 1914.
Mr. Shepard Barclay for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Gampbell Cummings for the defendant in error. .... ..
[MAJORITY]
Per. Curiam.' Dismissed for want of. jurisdiction. Omaha Railroad Company v. Omaha, 230 U. S. 123; Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561; Chicago Junction Railway Company v. King, 222 U. S. 223; In re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 208 U. S. 109.